PDA

View Full Version : Clarification of transporting restricted



L33CHW33D
08-17-2014, 09:50 PM
I've heard people talk of "direct route" and that if you stop at a Timmies you're in biiiig trouble.

Where is the law regarding that.. or is there even one?

A. LaHaye
08-18-2014, 07:00 AM
It's within the conditions of your ATT. Mine for example states "Firearms must be transported by a route that, in all circumstances, is reasonably direct." Being a condition on that ATT, if I fail to adhere to it, the ATT I would think becomes invalid. At the end of the day you'd likely have to argue with an LEO that stopping at Timmies is "reasonable", and said LEO would probably err on the side of caution. Next thing you know you're in front of a judge. That's the worst case scenario, individual experiences likely vary from province to province. Myself, I don't push my luck, have gone through the legal meat grinder over firearms issues. It's expensive and unpleasant.

Stevebot-7
08-18-2014, 07:28 AM
It's all very subjective. If you're driving six hours to a range on the other side of the province, it's reasonable to stop for gas and food. If you're driving half an hour, stopping for gas and food is perhaps a little less reasonable in some people's eyes. Then again we have had people call the CFO and be told it's okay to drive two hours in the opposite direction to pick up a friend, and then turn around and drive to the range. Other people have been told they better bring a jerrycan of gas, because if their vehicle stops they are going to jail.

One example I have used in the past is neighbourhoods with high crime rates. If a direct route takes me through those neighbourhoods, I think it is reasonable to detour around them. After all this is about public safety, as such, it is probably not a good idea to be transporting guns through an area where there are higher than average odds of being carjacked at a red light, or being stuck in traffic behind police or ambulances.

corytrevor
08-18-2014, 07:40 AM
All depends on what's 'resonable' to you. Timmy's is not reasonable, it's required :D

L33CHW33D
08-18-2014, 08:13 AM
All depends on what's 'resonable' to you. Timmy's is not reasonable, it's required :D

lol okay. So it's not "written law" it's subjective depending on the mood officer, whether or not his wife yelled at him on his way out the door that morning.

My argument is that when my wife calls me and says, "Can you stop at NoFrills and get some milk" on the way home from the range - I want to be able to do that (which I'm currently not), without the risk of facing an angry "hate-the-universe" cop who wants to put everyone in jail.

1. We live in a world where we are needing to be frugal about how we use our gas in our vehicles. If we can save a trip then we should be able to do so.

2. If they were concerned about us stopping and leaving our vehicle unattended they wouldn't have given us laws regarding proper and safe storage of all classification of firearms.

3. And the likelihood of someone jumping into my car, stealing my vehicle or my firearm while we're parked or especially in a drive-thru is so unlikely that you're country would have to thrive on paranoia to believe that this is a risk!

The interpretation is ridiculous. The law needs to be written and the enforcement consistent. Not depending on the mood or personal views and opinions of the officer. That's just crap.

My suggestion? Can't just disagree about a law without a suggesting a way to improve. Perhaps in an effort to make it less subjective change the law to "taking a route which is direct and if requires accommodates brief or overnight stops" Then there's less interpretation because the law prescribes the use of these stops? I'm not a law-maker, I'm an X-ray Tech but I do my best.

Jay
08-18-2014, 10:26 AM
Try to explain to a LEO that your Bank, the Ex's, etc, were on the way to the range. Good luck with that.

"Most direct" means you can take a traffic app like google maps routing and choose "shortest distance" not "shortest travel time" and find yourself winding through neighbourhoods unnecessarily.

Strewth
08-18-2014, 10:45 AM
Has anyone ever been charged with this offence?
I've got Timmies, my bank, the post office, the grocery store, the drug store, the gas station and a sushi place all on the shortest route to my range, just lucky.

awndray
08-18-2014, 10:51 AM
My argument is that when my wife calls me and says, "Can you stop at NoFrills and get some milk" on the way home from the range - I want to be able to do that (which I'm currently not), without the risk of facing an angry "hate-the-universe" cop who wants to put everyone in jail.
Yes you can. There is no law that states otherwise. What reason would a cop have to go find you at the grocery store in the first place?

It seems to me a lot of people over-analyze everything out of fear. Don't give anyone a reason to suspect you're doing something wrong and you won't run into any trouble. Besides, you're not doing anything wrong by stopping for gas, coffee, food or to take a leak on your way home from the range.

Jay
08-18-2014, 12:03 PM
What reason would a cop have to go find you at the grocery store in the first place?

Don't they have an automated system in their interceptors that scan licence plates they drive by? It alerts them when a vehicle is spotted that is on their BOLO. This tech has existed for years and is in place in many departments, such as for parking enforcement in the US. Is it such a stretch of the imagination they would have a cautionary alert for licence plates registered to people with a PAL or RPAL?

Then they may feel an unattended vehicle registered to an RPAL owner is worthy of investigating.

awndray
08-18-2014, 12:05 PM
lol

corytrevor
08-18-2014, 01:10 PM
Keep in mind, theres no GPS tracker (yet) on your car thats being monitored.

corytrevor
08-18-2014, 01:11 PM
Don't they have an automated system in their interceptors that scan licence plates they drive by? It alerts them when a vehicle is spotted that is on their BOLO. This tech has existed for years and is in place in many departments, such as for parking enforcement in the US. Is it such a stretch of the imagination they would have a cautionary alert for licence plates registered to people with a PAL or RPAL?

Then they may feel an unattended vehicle registered to an RPAL owner is worthy of investigating.


Do you Think that's "reasonable grounds" for a vehicle search in a grocery parking lot? (serious legal question)

L33CHW33D
08-18-2014, 01:51 PM
Oh jeez. Lots of views here and interpretation that's the problem. Why couldn't we just be trusted that where we have our gun in our vehicle we're being responsible, discreet, and safe with it. I mean we've been entrusted to have them.

corytrevor
08-18-2014, 02:20 PM
Oh jeez. Lots of views here and interpretation that's the problem. Why couldn't we just be trusted that where we have our gun in our vehicle we're being responsible, discreet, and safe with it. I mean we've been entrusted to have them.

Yeah, it'd be nice to have more "black & white" (not a racial comment) firearms laws.

8irdman
08-18-2014, 03:10 PM
I called the CFC on this very issue. There's a thread here somewhere where I posted that we stopped to pick up drinks and bug spray on the way to the range. The range in question was far enough away that a stop for gas was not out of the question either but not necessary in our case. As a result of being called out on this practice by someone here I called the CFC for clarification.

While it is not encouraged to do so, a stop on the way to the range is OK while transporting Restricteds as long as it is on your route.

L33CHW33D
08-18-2014, 03:16 PM
I called the CFC on this very issue. There's a thread here somewhere where I posted that we stopped to pick up drinks and bug spray on the way to the range. The range in question was far enough away that a stop for gas was not out of the question either but not necessary in our case. As a result of being called out on this practice by someone here I called the CFC for clarification.

While it is not encouraged to do so, a stop on the way to the range is OK while transporting Restricteds as long as it is on your route.

Well awesome to know! I feel better lol. Because in Brooks... anyway I take is a direct route to the range (I've only got 1 or two options lol) haha! And every store is on that direct route to the range.

I like the "black and white" there though. "While it's not encouraged to so" haha. sad.

Jay
08-18-2014, 04:16 PM
Do you Think that's "reasonable grounds" for a vehicle search in a grocery parking lot? (serious legal question)

It doesn't matter what we think. An officer could decide it is reasonable.

Lee Enfield
08-18-2014, 04:40 PM
Remember you had to stop at Tim's as you were having a low blood sugar episode. Tell the rocket scientist that questions you to prove you didn't.

L33CHW33D
08-18-2014, 05:17 PM
It doesn't matter what we think. An officer could decide it is reasonable.

So it's all subjective and crap. You can't create a law which could ensue an offense and have the law regarding it vague and "up the officer's mood". That's crap.

Where is the law on ink (text) about the law and punishments regarding the ATT?

Found this on wikipedia:

In theory, a CFO should issue an ATT to any authorized individual who provides one of the listed reasons, as long as the CFO is satisfied that the transport "will not endanger public safety".

Not endanger public safety? Every time I see a 16 year jump in a car (or truck rather) I feel that the public safety has been endangered yet it's completely legal. Yet somehow if I stopped with my 3x locked handgun, hidden out of sight in my minivan, and stopped at Wendy's to get a Baconator (cause who wouldn't?!) that is considered endangering the public safety? Wait. Officer John might think so, so there you are, you're in court! But if you have been pulled over by Officer Williams, he would have given you a coupon for the Baconator.

Complete crap.

Jay
08-18-2014, 05:34 PM
How about all those kids who steal cars for joyrides? They must have had this in mind when they designed the Firearms Act, to help protect them from our property. And then the YCJA protects them from themselves, and protects their parents identities too. A trunkfull of tools get taken, someone hurts themselves shortly after, and you're getting charged with something while you're still drinking your coffee at a Timmies.

topher
08-18-2014, 06:10 PM
Keep in mind, theres no GPS tracker (yet) on your car thats being monitored.

There is in mind.. My boss watches every where I go.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

JRW (QOR)
08-19-2014, 08:12 AM
You guys are missing another aspect of this. Lots of people will go to an event the night before spending that night at a friends/relative/motel, and heading to the event in the morning. I have to do that. That's not legal? Dont think so.

BUCK45
08-19-2014, 06:06 PM
You guys are missing another aspect of this. Lots of people will go to an event the night before spending that night at a friends/relative/motel, and heading to the event in the morning. I have to do that. That's not legal? Dont think so.

Been there done that and yes it's OK with CFO. On route to an out of town match. The intent of the reasonable direct route is to stop you from going on a shopping trip in your local mall with your stuff in the trunk.

Going to Timmies on the way home from range. YOU GOTTA GO when you gotta go. Nature calls. Timmies may give you coffee at a drive through. But they won't take your crap even in an extra large cup.

Jay
08-20-2014, 08:15 AM
Keep in mind, theres no GPS tracker (yet) on your car thats being monitored.

Meanwhile in the US news yesterday, Obama wants all vehicles to have a device for transmitting velocity and location and other information, so that vehicles can warn eachother for "anti-collision" and also so they can be remotely disabled just like Bait Car.

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 09:23 AM
It's within the conditions of your ATT. Mine for example states "Firearms must be transported by a route that, in all circumstances, is reasonably direct." Being a condition on that ATT, if I fail to adhere to it, the ATT I would think becomes invalid. At the end of the day you'd likely have to argue with an LEO that stopping at Timmies is "reasonable", and said LEO would probably err on the side of caution. Next thing you know you're in front of a judge. That's the worst case scenario, individual experiences likely vary from province to province. Myself, I don't push my luck, have gone through the legal meat grinder over firearms issues. It's expensive and unpleasant.

Any LEO with even half a brain will understand a stop at timmies etc is perfectly reasonable. Staying there for 10 hours though is not.

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 09:25 AM
Try to explain to a LEO that your Bank, the Ex's, etc, were on the way to the range. Good luck with that.

"Most direct" means you can take a traffic app like google maps routing and choose "shortest distance" not "shortest travel time" and find yourself winding through neighbourhoods unnecessarily.

But the law does not say "most direct" it is "reasonably direct"

Which also means if you are picking up a friend to go to the range and back that is still reasonable. However if staying at their place for more than an hour etc,.. take the firearms into the house since then they are in storage and not transport.

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 09:27 AM
Yes you can. There is no law that states otherwise. What reason would a cop have to go find you at the grocery store in the first place?

It seems to me a lot of people over-analyze everything out of fear. Don't give anyone a reason to suspect you're doing something wrong and you won't run into any trouble. Besides, you're not doing anything wrong by stopping for gas, coffee, food or to take a leak on your way home from the range.

All very true and it's sad how others try to advise "go above and beyond" which in many ways is fear mongering IMO.

Obey the law yes.. live in complete fear of it? No.. if that is how someone wants to act etc.. they should give up their guns now.

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 09:30 AM
Do you Think that's "reasonable grounds" for a vehicle search in a grocery parking lot? (serious legal question)

It is not

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 09:31 AM
Oh jeez. Lots of views here and interpretation that's the problem. Why couldn't we just be trusted that where we have our gun in our vehicle we're being responsible, discreet, and safe with it. I mean we've been entrusted to have them.

Indeed.. and the system was designed to do the opposite

Again one of the many reasons I picked the fight with wyatt in the first place. He even tried BS that in court!

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 09:32 AM
Yeah, it'd be nice to have more "black & white" (not a racial comment) firearms laws.

The fact you thought it necessary to put in that disclaimer screams volumes about the same sort of problem... being "politically correct" etc etc and worrying about someone assuming it is racist when in context it is obviously anything but.

I suggest you relax about such :)

:Beer time:

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 09:35 AM
It doesn't matter what we think. An officer could decide it is reasonable.

On the contrary.. they cannot per se.. including a search of your car and especially your firearms unless they are a 'firearms officer" (most are not).. funny how most don't know this.

Also keeping a printout of the relevant section of the law with your paperwork is wise for dealing with newbs on the force etc (the fact that it is wise is again very very sad)

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 09:37 AM
You guys are missing another aspect of this. Lots of people will go to an event the night before spending that night at a friends/relative/motel, and heading to the event in the morning. I have to do that. That's not legal? Dont think so.

It is legal but do not leave the firearms in the vehicle since that would constitute "storage" (Yeah I know it's moronic)

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 09:38 AM
Been there done that and yes it's OK with CFO. On route to an out of town match. The intent of the reasonable direct route is to stop you from going on a shopping trip in your local mall with your stuff in the trunk.

Going to Timmies on the way home from range. YOU GOTTA GO when you gotta go. Nature calls. Timmies may give you coffee at a drive through. But they won't take your crap even in an extra large cup.

LMFAO! Indeed they won't but they sure as hell serve it up in their coffee! :evil1:

Jay
08-21-2014, 10:38 AM
Also keeping a printout of the relevant section of the law with your paperwork is wise for dealing with newbs on the force etc (the fact that it is wise is again very very sad)

I keep a copy of the RCMP's "Special Bulletin for Businesses No. 72" in several places, also in each of my range bags. I have a printout of firearms classifications in the event I have to provide training, free of their expense, to show that these are not prohibited despite how scary they might be.. based on colour alone! "It's 'cause they're black, innit??"

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 01:58 PM
I keep a copy of the RCMP's "Special Bulletin for Businesses No. 72" in several places, also in each of my range bags. I have a printout of firearms classifications in the event I have to provide training, free of their expense, to show that these are not prohibited despite how scary they might be.. based on colour alone! "It's 'cause they're black, innit??"

It was so much simpler years ago w/o all this BS being needed...

JRW (QOR)
08-21-2014, 03:13 PM
It is legal but do not leave the firearms in the vehicle since that would constitute "storage" (Yeah I know it's moronic)

Over night? Nope, you cant leave firearms unattended in your vehicle over night. I bring them inside my son's house, including the ammo. All locked up.

Shalimar
08-21-2014, 03:33 PM
Over night? Nope, you cant leave firearms unattended in your vehicle over night. I bring them inside my son's house, including the ammo. All locked up.

Exactly and there hve been people charged for leaving them there for a few hours. :mad1:

CDNGN
09-23-2014, 11:16 AM
I know why this question is being asked, and l do appreciate reading everyone's take on it. But l just wonder. How would the LEO even know that you had firearms in your vehicle in the first place???

Shalimar
09-23-2014, 01:03 PM
I know why this question is being asked, and l do appreciate reading everyone's take on it. But l just wonder. How would the LEO even know that you had firearms in your vehicle in the first place???

They wouldn't as a rule

Jay
09-23-2014, 01:03 PM
I know why this question is being asked, and l do appreciate reading everyone's take on it. But l just wonder. How would the LEO even know that you had firearms in your vehicle in the first place???

If license plates are automatically read by a digital camera computer..
If license registrant is in system and automatically links to other licenses..
If one of those licenses is a PAL..
Chances are fair the computer found a target to victimize/criminalize. It doesn't care which.

Shalimar
09-23-2014, 01:27 PM
If license plates are automatically read by a digital camera computer..
If license registrant is in system and automatically links to other licenses..
If one of those licenses is a PAL..
Chances are fair the computer found a target to victimize/criminalize. It doesn't care which.

Sadly all too true

awndray
09-23-2014, 01:28 PM
LOL!

TPK
09-23-2014, 01:39 PM
Don't they have an automated system in their interceptors that scan licence plates they drive by? ... Is it such a stretch of the imagination they would have a cautionary alert for licence plates registered to people with a PAL or RPAL?

Yup, apply for a PAL/RPAL , get accepted and your name immediately goes on the CPIC list with all of the "rest" of the criminals.

JRW(QOR) - Where did you get the information that you can't store firearms in a vehicle overnight?? Stored according to the requirements of the classification of firearm(s) in question, out of sight and vehicle locked=good to go. If you chose to bring them in to the residence you're staying at that's a personal decision not a legal requirement.

Shalimar
09-23-2014, 01:44 PM
Yup, apply for a PAL/RPAL , get accepted and your name immediately goes on the CPIC list with all of the "rest" of the criminals.

JRW(QOR) - Where did you get the information that you can't store firearms in a vehicle overnight?? Stored according to the requirements of the classification of firearm(s) in question, out of sight and vehicle locked=good to go.


Sadly from the FA itself as well as case law... technically that is a violation of transport law.. not storage law.. and it is written in such a way as to easily be used against us... and it has more than once sadly.

Remember.. Use, Storage and Transport are very different things under our current laws.. and those laws are crafted to persecute us w/o any doubt.

TPK
09-23-2014, 01:55 PM
That's what I'm getting at Shalimar, the laws change when you are no longer transporting and the situation becomes storage (staying overnight somewhere on the way to a shoot as an example). I can't find anything that says my restricted firearms can't be properly stored in my vehicle overnight. I have no doubt people have been charged doing so, maybe even convicted, but wrongly so if that's the case. Every year we have people that have their non-restricted firearms seized due to them not being trigger locked during transportation. Do they need to be? .. no, does it still happen, sadly, yes.

From the RCMP Website;

Leaving any class of firearms in an unattended vehicle:
Lock non-restricted firearms and locked containers carrying restricted or prohibited firearms in the trunk or in a similar lockable compartment.

If the vehicle does not have a trunk or lockable compartment, put firearms and firearm containers out of sight inside the vehicle and lock the vehicle.

If you are in a remote wilderness area and cannot lock your non-restricted firearms inside your vehicle, unload them and put them out of sight. Attach a secure locking device to the firearms unless they are needed for predator control.

Shalimar
09-23-2014, 02:21 PM
That's what I'm getting at Shalimar, the laws change when you are no longer transporting and the situation becomes storage (staying overnight somewhere on the way to a shoot as an example). I can't find anything that says my restricted firearms can't be properly stored in my vehicle overnight. I have no doubt people have been charged doing so, maybe even convicted, but wrongly so if that's the case. Every year we have people that have their non-restricted firearms seized due to them not being trigger locked during transportation. Do they need to be? .. no, does it still happen, sadly, yes.

From the RCMP Website;

Leaving any class of firearms in an unattended vehicle:
Lock non-restricted firearms and locked containers carrying restricted or prohibited firearms in the trunk or in a similar lockable compartment.

If the vehicle does not have a trunk or lockable compartment, put firearms and firearm containers out of sight inside the vehicle and lock the vehicle.

If you are in a remote wilderness area and cannot lock your non-restricted firearms inside your vehicle, unload them and put them out of sight. Attach a secure locking device to the firearms unless they are needed for predator control.



therein lies the problem... by the letter of the law in a vehicle is NOT "safe storage".. and yes ppl have been charged and convicted over this.

The lunacy is say you are at X hotel while traveling to X competition... you leave the firearms in the vehicle it is not safe storage.. regardless of how they are locked up. But you take the case/bag etc out of the vehicle and put it in the hotel room it is safe storage etc etc..

again it's intentionally designed this way... make no mistake at all.. cukier/rock etc did this with ill intent regardless of there being no common sense involved at all.

Hell you don't even have to be at a hotel... by case law anyone can be charged for leaving the firearms in the vehicle for X period of time 9and X is not defined beyond a short stop).... sadly this also applies to NR as well which again is absurd..

once again ALL of the FA needs to be pitched to say the least.. and screw that "one bite at a time crap"

TPK
09-23-2014, 02:48 PM
Crazy stuff for sure, the RCMP website tells you what you need to do to legally leave your firearms in an unattended vehicle .. then charges you for doing so!

Shalimar
09-23-2014, 02:56 PM
Crazy stuff for sure, the RCMP website tells you what you need to do to legally leave your firearms in an unattended vehicle .. then charges you for doing so!

Not crazy... it's intentional.. and very evil in nature intentionally. :mad:

GlockGuy
09-23-2014, 05:13 PM
Where I live the cops are too busy responding to 911 calls to do anything else. They don't even bother with speeders etc. unless they get complaint about an area. I'm sure it that way in most major cities as well.

bettercallsaul
09-23-2014, 08:48 PM
Then they may feel an unattended vehicle registered to an RPAL owner is worthy of investigating.

lol

greywolf67nt
09-23-2014, 09:11 PM
I live in the middle of NOWHERE. It is a 2 1/2 hr plane ride and then 1/2 hr drive to the range listed on my ATT. No such thing really as a direct route.
I specifically asked when applying for my ATT and they said as long as I am not driving all over Edmonton with them in my car I'm good.

SubVet49
09-23-2014, 10:36 PM
Common sense ..... or should I say the "Common Sense Firearms Laws" that are in process (?). If this happens the ATT BS will completely go away. Yes .....

awndray
09-24-2014, 05:51 AM
No, it won't. Have a look at the wording. All they are proposing is getting of a piece of paper. Everything else applies.

Shalimar
09-24-2014, 06:23 AM
No, it won't. Have a look at the wording. All they are proposing is getting of a piece of paper. Everything else applies.

Sadly true... we can't conclude anything for sure yet since we have not seen even the draft version.. but we can put big time pressure on Blaney to word it so as to effectively eliminate the ATT entirely.

JRW (QOR)
09-24-2014, 12:34 PM
No, it won't. Have a look at the wording. All they are proposing is getting of a piece of paper. Everything else applies.

It mostly does. The interesting aspect of changing the ATTs as proposed is it will start to save the Federal government money. The FA requires the CFOs prove the money required to fund them. By removing 90% of ATT being issued means less hours of work, that means less money to the CFO's. That means less power in both ways.

corytrevor
09-24-2014, 01:02 PM
The fact you thought it necessary to put in that disclaimer screams volumes about the same sort of problem... being "politically correct" etc etc and worrying about someone assuming it is racist when in context it is obviously anything but.

I suggest you relax about such :)

:Beer time:

Theres a lot of butthurt on the internet.

Haywire1
09-24-2014, 01:09 PM
I read it as giving friendly advice to a member in a teasing fashion. I spose one mans teasing is another mans butthurt. Back on topic

Wendell
09-24-2014, 01:27 PM
I live in the middle of NOWHERE. It is a 2 1/2 hr plane ride and then 1/2 hr drive to the range listed on my ATT. No such thing really as a direct route.
I specifically asked when applying for my ATT and they said as long as I am not driving all over Edmonton with them in my car I'm good.

I'd bet $20. that your ATT does not say "direct route" at all, and actually says "reasonably direct route"; one extra word that can make a significant difference.

Q.) Who decides what "reasonably direct" means?
A.) A Judge.

8irdman
09-24-2014, 06:04 PM
No, it won't. Have a look at the wording. All they are proposing is getting of a piece of paper. Everything else applies.


It mostly does. The interesting aspect of changing the ATTs as proposed is it will start to save the Federal government money. The FA requires the CFOs prove the money required to fund them. By removing 90% of ATT being issued means less hours of work, that means less money to the CFO's. That means less power in both ways.

From what I understand the intent is that under the CSFLA with a RPAL and a registered restricted firearm you will not need to apply for a STATT if you need to go anywhere you could transport the firearm legally. So, I need to go to the gunsmith, I go, observing the proper transport regs while doing so. I want to go to a range, not on my LTATT, I go. I want to go to the border to shoot an IPSC match in the US, I go (with the proper US docs I'll need) etc etc. No begging the CFO for a ATT every time one of these situations come up, you just go as long as you transport correctly etc.

SubVet49
09-24-2014, 09:47 PM
No, it won't. Have a look at the wording. All they are proposing is getting of a piece of paper. Everything else applies.

The ATT's do not imply changes to the storage or transport regulations, nor did I say that. But, the "supposed" changes will eliminate both the STATT and LTATT paperwork and the BS wording.

awndray
09-25-2014, 06:12 AM
There is no separate paperwork for short-term or long-term. It's all the same and it's just an ATT. As for the proposed changes, I would really like for someone to show us the specifics. So far, all we're seeing is a lot of people making assumptions.

Shalimar
09-25-2014, 06:50 AM
It mostly does. The interesting aspect of changing the ATTs as proposed is it will start to save the Federal government money. The FA requires the CFOs prove the money required to fund them. By removing 90% of ATT being issued means less hours of work, that means less money to the CFO's. That means less power in both ways.

Possibly... we have nothing to base that on yet.. and the funding aspect is an unknown at this time.. but hey we can hope!

Shalimar
09-25-2014, 06:53 AM
I read it as giving friendly advice to a member in a teasing fashion. I spose one mans teasing is another mans butthurt. Back on topic

Indeed it was.. the "PC" crap is way overboard IMO and sadly there are too many that will cry "butthurt" over it.

But hey such is the nature of freedom of speech

I'd post one pic of "interwebz teasing" but it's not on this comp argh!

Shalimar
09-25-2014, 06:54 AM
I'd bet $20. that your ATT does not say "direct route" at all, and actually says "reasonably direct route"; one extra word that can make a significant difference.

Q.) Who decides what "reasonably direct" means?
A.) A Judge.

It has to be "reasonably direct" as per the wording in the actual FA

I would be though that the CFO would refuse to issue an ATT to use the evil restricted's on a non-range in the middle of nowhere.. despite that being legal.

Shalimar
09-25-2014, 06:57 AM
The ATT's do not imply changes to the storage or transport regulations, nor did I say that. But, the "supposed" changes will eliminate both the STATT and LTATT paperwork and the BS wording.

An ATT can never impact storage or transport law.. they are mutually exclusive from each other and transport laws. Something many still don't understand.

And in theory yes the upcoming changes will at least in part eliminate the ATT.. but not completely.. :mad:

Shalimar
09-25-2014, 06:59 AM
There is no separate paperwork for short-term or long-term. It's all the same and it's just an ATT. As for the proposed changes, I would really like for someone to show us the specifics. So far, all we're seeing is a lot of people making assumptions.

I've already been bugging my contacts as well as Blaney and a few others for that as soon as they can give me a draft (even if it's not to be made public).. as soon as I've got my paws on it I'll post what I can of course.

Meanwhile everyone needs to keep the pressure on Blaney etc.. to eliminate the ATT completely as well as other changes such as use of restricted class etc the same as non-restricted since there is no common sense to that 'rule' at all

SubVet49
09-25-2014, 02:21 PM
There is no separate paperwork for short-term or long-term. It's all the same and it's just an ATT. As for the proposed changes, I would really like for someone to show us the specifics. So far, all we're seeing is a lot of people making assumptions.

What .... The short-term and long-term are in fact different, read them ..... They are definitely "different" paperwork. I understand your point that they are just an ATT, but they are different and for different purposes.

awndray
09-25-2014, 03:06 PM
Look at the paperwork. You won't find the words short-term, nor long-term. ;)

Shalimar
09-25-2014, 04:24 PM
What .... The short-term and long-term are in fact different, read them ..... They are definitely "different" paperwork. I understand your point that they are just an ATT, but they are different and for different purposes.

Sorry but no.. ST and LT are common nicknames / nomenclature used only.. they hold no legal standing at all. ALL ATTs are the same paprtwork/laws

Shalimar
09-25-2014, 04:25 PM
Look at the paperwork. You won't find the words short-term, nor long-term. ;)

More importantly.. look in the full firearms act and neither term are ever used in context of any ATT at all.

greywolf67nt
09-25-2014, 11:30 PM
I just bought my first restricted and received 2 ATTs.
The first one had the date I was picking up my 1911 and the date I was expected to get it home. Therefore STATT.
The second had an expiry date of when my RPAL expires. Therefore regular ATT.
As the CFO explained to me the first was to just get the gun home and wait for my registration to be mailed to me and then use the second ATT to travel back and forth.

Shalimar
09-26-2014, 06:52 AM
I just bought my first restricted and received 2 ATTs.
The first one had the date I was picking up my 1911 and the date I was expected to get it home. Therefore STATT.
The second had an expiry date of when my RPAL expires. Therefore regular ATT.
As the CFO explained to me the first was to just get the gun home and wait for my registration to be mailed to me and then use the second ATT to travel back and forth.

But you miss the point.. they are both "regular" ATT's since there is only one type of ATT legally.. only the details granted by the CFO change but the law governing such does not. It again is just common nomenclature to use ST/LT.. though such has zero legal bearing at all. (I also proved that in court already as have others)

The CFO can claim they are a special uber ATT etc etc... but the reality is they are all in essence the same under the law before the CFO adds their pointless and punitive "conditions".. making them into very expensive bum wad at best.

Mad Hatter
09-26-2014, 12:25 PM
I have gun stickers all over the rear of my car and to date have never been pulled over...

Kobs
10-13-2014, 05:09 PM
Oh jeez. Lots of views here and interpretation that's the problem. Why couldn't we just be trusted that where we have our gun in our vehicle we're being responsible, discreet, and safe with it. I mean we've been entrusted to have them.

Same goes with the storage of ammo, my Bill 9 instructor (on a side note) told us that storing ammo with the firearm (in the same gun locker) without being in another "locked" container was wrong and again there is no "written" laws on that and further more on the video we get in the restricted class we see a guy storing a box of 357 ammo a foot away from his gun on the same shelf. If that's in another locked container i'm the king of France loll, So in other words some peoples are so afraid of prosecution that they will make up stuff to be on the safe side of things

Shalimar
10-14-2014, 11:54 AM
Same goes with the storage of ammo, my Bill 9 instructor (on a side note) told us that storing ammo with the firearm (in the same gun locker) without being in another "locked" container was wrong and again there is no "written" laws on that and further more on the video we get in the restricted class we see a guy storing a box of 357 ammo a foot away from his gun on the same shelf. If that's in another locked container i'm the king of France loll, So in other words some peoples are so afraid of prosecution that they will make up stuff to be on the safe side of things

There are also so many that perpetuate myths and lies it's pathetic.. you wouldn't believe the # of ppl I encounted when I was prepping my ATT fight that didn't have a clue in so many ways it was a :Bang head: time to say the least.

I even gave a few "lectures" of sorts about the ATTs to several clubs.. amazing how ignorant so many were about it.

In fact one I know in TO wants me and maybe cyclone to do a presentation etc about it to a large group of ppl.

mouthpiece
10-15-2014, 06:13 AM
Your present ATT is not on CPIC . It's a unique document that you and the CFO have. So if stopped and the restricted is found or observed by police it is YOU who has to inform the police of your ATT. So keep a copy handy when transporting.

superbad
10-27-2014, 07:19 PM
If i need to poop get gas and grab a coffee im going to do that. If i had to chose between pooping when i want to and owning guns ill take pooping. Im not wearing a diaper cause i cant poop while going to the range. Im also not going to go thirsty or hungry. I usually take food but sometimes i dont and stop by a drive thru or gas station if thats is wrong i dont want to be right.

Steveo9mm
10-27-2014, 07:29 PM
If i need to poop get gas and grab a coffee im going to do that. If i had to chose between pooping when i want to and owning guns ill take pooping. Im not wearing a diaper cause i cant poop while going to the range. Im also not going to go thirsty or hungry. I usually take food but sometimes i dont and stop by a drive thru or gas station if thats is wrong i dont want to be right.

:run:

Wendell
10-27-2014, 08:21 PM
Your present ATT is not on CPIC . It's a unique document that you and the CFO have. So if stopped and the restricted is found or observed by police it is YOU who has to inform the police of your ATT. So keep a copy handy when transporting.

If police are not able to view each current ATT, don't they at least have 24/7 access to a CFP officer who can view it?
Surely, there is some process for a police officer to confirm the validity of my white-bond paper photocopy, even on a highway, at night, on a holiday weekend. If there isn't, there should be.

Shalimar
10-28-2014, 09:51 AM
If i need to poop get gas and grab a coffee im going to do that. If i had to chose between pooping when i want to and owning guns ill take pooping. Im not wearing a diaper cause i cant poop while going to the range. Im also not going to go thirsty or hungry. I usually take food but sometimes i dont and stop by a drive thru or gas station if thats is wrong i dont want to be right.

No worries.. all of that is legal so long as where you picked to poop etc etc is on the "reasonably direct route" :tounge:

Neil Burke
10-29-2014, 07:08 PM
I find it funny that the most direct route (read: shortest distance) would take me through the middle of town and through a university campus or two.

Shalimar
10-30-2014, 07:14 AM
I find it funny that the most direct route (read: shortest distance) would take me through the middle of town and through a university campus or two.

The FA requires a "reasonably direct route".. not necessarily the most direct or shortest. That said LMAO irony once again from the lunacy of the FA

Jay
10-30-2014, 07:22 AM
The FA requires a "reasonably direct route".. not necessarily the most direct or shortest. That said LMAO irony once again from the lunacy of the FA

Unreasonable would be going directly across the lake in your truck instead of around it. Clearly, Neil is supposed to take it through campus because it is more direct and I don't see anything unreasonable about it.

Shalimar
10-30-2014, 08:05 AM
Unreasonable would be going directly across the lake in your truck instead of around it. Clearly, Neil is supposed to take it through campus because it is more direct and I don't see anything unreasonable about it.

LMAO!!!! Classic... and yet I can see the asshats like wyatt trying to harass or prosecute or someone for such since he's anything but "friendly" to us here in bantario.

Once again yet more proof the FA needs to go completely!

Neil Burke
10-31-2014, 06:31 PM
The FA requires a "reasonably direct route".. not necessarily the most direct or shortest. That said LMAO irony once again from the lunacy of the FA

Of course. What is "reasonably direct" and "most direct" are not always the same thing.

Jay
10-31-2014, 07:13 PM
Of course. What is "reasonably direct" and "most direct" are not always the same thing.

I think the question is, "what is not reasonably direct?" and not "why are you within XXkm with that?"

Shalimar
11-01-2014, 08:15 AM
Of course. What is "reasonably direct" and "most direct" are not always the same thing.

Very true :)


I think the question is, "what is not reasonably direct?" and not "why are you within XXkm with that?"

That is highly subjective.. but for sake of argument:

Say I want to go to Silverdale to shoot.. from home it's a pretty easy drive/ride (depending on weather traffic etc etc).. aprox a 25min drive (longer now with xtra traffic on stonechurch.. ugh)

However if say my friend Lyon wants to go as well but his car is broken and he lives in St. Kits.. then a reasonably direct route could be across hwy 20.. for part of the back roads and pick him up then go from there to Silverdale .. Or via the QEW / 406 to get him and then to SD.. and the reverse when done of course.

Or What about if I need to stop and pickup milk etc on the way back etc.. that would still be reasonably direct.

But it would not be reasonably direct if I was to stop off at a strip club for a few hours leaving the firearms in the vehicle. (ppl have been charged for leaving them in the vehicle for more than a cpl hours.. unsafe storage etc)

However I could for example go to Lyons.. take the firearms inside for those few hours and then finish the trip and it would be reasonable and not unsafe storage within the confines of the fubar FA.

So.. in essence.. so long as the route and stops within it are "reasonable" then it would qualify..

Like I said to start with though it's highly subjective to say the least and there is no hard/fast rule for it all.. just using some common sense is what I would suggest.

Gaidheal
11-01-2014, 08:54 AM
Stopped to get gas on the way home from the range yesterday - figured better to do that than abandon the vehicle at the side of the road.

No kittens died as a result.

I did however get some interesting looks from others in the gas station as I had an empty holster on my belt.

Good thing I don't live in an other Prov - I might have gotten swatted.

LOL

Shalimar
11-01-2014, 09:01 AM
Stopped to get gas on the way home from the range yesterday - figured better to do that than abandon the vehicle at the side of the road.

No kittens died as a result.

I did however get some interesting looks from others in the gas station as I had an empty holster on my belt.

Good thing I don't live in an other Prov - I might have gotten swatted.

LOL

Aww you saved those kittens by having an empty holster! ;D

in bantario u'd be in jail for life already for daring to do such an insanely dangerous thing!

awndray
11-01-2014, 09:40 AM
I often have my empty holster and mag pouches on my belt to and from the range. A stop at the gas station, the ATM or at Tim Hortons is not uncommon. I've never been bothered.

Shalimar
11-01-2014, 10:09 AM
I often have my empty holster and mag pouches on my belt to and from the range. A stop at the gas station, the ATM or at Tim Hortons is not uncommon. I've never been bothered.

being bothered is not the same as having some "stares" etc.. it can be surprising how varied the reactions can be.

I remember being stared at when I was in uniform and was armed.. and other times not even being given a passing glance when open carrying through the middle of town.

awndray
11-01-2014, 10:16 AM
I guess that depends on whether or not stares bother you. :p

Shalimar
11-01-2014, 10:41 AM
I guess that depends on whether or not stares bother you. :p

Touche!

They don't in my case.. but I have had some interesting comments at times just over the fact I have guns.. some especially priceless.

Best one though was my wife at her friends place (I wasn't there but would have loved to be the fly on the wall). In short.. they "freaked" that she was "letting" me have firearms..

she set them straight in short order to the point they had to pick up their jaws and had no words to say back ;D

Jay
11-01-2014, 11:12 AM
But it would not be reasonably direct if I was to stop off at a strip club for a few hours leaving the firearms in the vehicle. (ppl have been charged for leaving them in the vehicle for more than a cpl hours.. unsafe storage etc)

However I could for example go to Lyons.. take the firearms inside for those few hours and then finish the trip and it would be reasonable and not unsafe storage within the confines of the fubar FA.

OK so I should carry my firearms into the strip clubs? :)

Shalimar
11-01-2014, 11:23 AM
OK so I should carry my firearms into the strip clubs? :)

LMAO

As absurd as it sounds technically it would be legal if you have permission from the owner since it is private property and they remained in a "safe manner" of storage unless they are being "used" (which is of course a separate section of the farce of the FA) and it is within the "reasonably direct route".

I am sure however the CFO would have a hissy regardless so I somehow wouldn't suggest using that as a precedent ;D

Jay
11-02-2014, 12:48 PM
It would be fun to get them to pose with them and get pictures for forums.

Edenchef
11-02-2014, 01:29 PM
I can do that! I've already had one dancer borrow my swords for a poster shoot. Why not other toys? With me present for "security" of course.:bananna:

Cheers!

Shalimar
11-03-2014, 01:21 AM
It would be fun to get them to pose with them and get pictures for forums.


I can do that! I've already had one dancer borrow my swords for a poster shoot. Why not other toys? With me present for "security" of course.:bananna:

Cheers!


Hmm I might be able to arrange that.. I worked in a strip club yrs ago.. so I know a few that might be connected to it still and some that would be willing! ;D